Of Law Exam Mode All Page - · PDF fileexpansion into Herring's good faith exception for...

Institution Wiiiamette College Of Law Exam Mode Closed

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I ·Morris Collin

Extegrity Exam4 > 14.1.6.0 Section All Page 3 of 19

Answer-to-Question-short answer 1

This quotation comes from ~_<!hio. Mapp involved an unlawful search and ~-~·-·

seizure, where officers forcibly entered a home, seized its occupant, and rummaged \

through all of her things, eventually locating lewd material in violation of a state statute . . J

Evidence illegally obtained was then used to secure a conviction. This practice - "·

convicted based on evidence so acquired - was forbidden at the federal level but j ~ permissible at the state level. The ~~~or -~::_~~~-~mits, pursuant to the Federal \

Constitution, on the government and government agents' authority to search and seize y t,. •. //

violation of the Fourth Amendment. The author indicates the great need to deter this,

conduct, promote the integrity of the judiciary, and restore the person denied her /

protections to the position she would have occupied but for the breach.

In the case law for thi.s course, this argument has manifested itself in the creation of

the exclusionary rule, a judicial ~refer~-~~_f?~_a_.~~-ant, well-delineated exceptions to

the requirement for a warrant, and recently, for searches and seizures that are

"reasonable" under the totality of the circumstances. Exclusion is-purposed to deter

misconduct on behalf of police officers that is deliberate, reckless, grossly negligent, or

of a recurringly and negligent nature. The rationale is not complex: if the evidence is . .... ... .·. . . .....__ inadmissible in court, there is certainly less incentive to employ those unlawful methods .-----~ _, __ ,__.,,,.,,;_,_•~-. ·-'-~··-_-_,,,,....,_ --- ... ,,, --·------·~·'-·· .. ~·----~···~;~"---· ' ... ,~. ~·- ~- ... " , . ·····~ ''""·--~,.---..

to acquire it. By keeping that illegally obtained evidence out of the accused's criminal .-------~~-----.

trial, the appearance of propriety of the justice system is enhanced, and the judiciary does ---·-·-~--w __ _

not look like it is in cahoots with corrupt law enforcement. Case law revealst he utility of

the warrant requirement. Such a stipulation interposes the judgment of a neutral and

Institution Willamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed Extegrlty Exam4 > 14.1.6.0

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I -Morris Collin

Section All Page 4 of 19

detached magistrate between citizens and police engaged in the often competitive

enterprise of ferreting out crime. As well, the constitutional common law has been apt to

recognize those circumstances in which securing a warrant does disservice to law

enforcement. Case law recognizes various exigencies and situations where excepting the v' requirement increases law enforcement safety. Finally, a flexible and sounce ( /)

"reasonableness" standard serves justice interests.

Institution Willamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed


Extegrity Exam4 > 14.1.6.0 5ection All Page 5 of 19


This quotation comes from Leon. There, the court applied the exclusionary rule in a

peculiar context - namely, where the police had no reason to believe they had acted ,,

unlawfully. An officer in Leon did his due diligence, applied for and secured a facially\

valid search warrant from a magistrate, and conducted a search that yielded contraband/

However, the warrant was subsequently found to be invalid, as the magistrate's I

I

determination of probable cause was incorrect. The majority in Leon the evidence

obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that no warrants shall issue

but upon probable cause was not to be excluded. Its holding was justified on the grounds ~_,

that the officer reasonably relied in good faith on the warrant.

~

The author here_ iHoncerned With the court' S reasoning - chiefly, that the beneifts ( v•) of exclusion must outweigh the costs. The author is concerned, perhaps, that the court has

unwisely tethered exclusion to a sliding scale, whereby invariably t~e. <-'.()~t"£f!~l~~~.f1g_a,_ .. --· - ...... ·--·-- -- - . . ... ..,,.., ..• -..._~.,- ., ________ ,,_.......... ... .. .... .

~ 11<)4 S -~ri~~~l-~a_c·~-~~~~oci:ty_ ~~l(~~~.~:jt~~~~!~:_ be_~=~~c::1~e~ed _~~olding the

q.... Fourth Amendment. The erosion ofsuch procedural safeguards is tantamount to an

eventual nullity of the constitutional guarantee.

In case law for this course, the cost-benefit balancing of exclusion has evidenced a

doctrinal drift. From Leon's good faith exception for the search warrant followed

Institution Wiiiamette College ot Law Exam Mode Closed

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I -Morris Comn


expansion into Herring's good faith exception for reasonable reliance on arrest warrant

subsequently found to be expired. Surely, a seizure of the person implicates more serious,

invasive action on behalf of the government than a search through that person's things. In r;) cases where relatively minor yet non_etl_i~ess £.QJJstitutio~have been violated, the { 1 court has steered away from the oncej)jjrrht line of Mapp and toward what the author in

~--~ ... -!!_~-~

Leon feared. Thus, where th~-~~~~~~ ru1,e ~~~-vi~lated, it was deemed

"not worth much," because the cost of excluding evidence ex.p,~cted.to beiound that was ---~·--·- ~--·- -,,~- --·- . ·-- . -· ~

indeed found outweighs the benefit in insuring people have a chance to prepare. -~~-'-.. ·-·~----··~-'-·---~··' ·- -- -·-··-··--·""'"·'-~'---- ..•.•• -.. 1-·-· -- --

themselves for the presence of officers and prevent the destruction or damage of their

property.

Institution Willamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed Extegrity Exam4 > 14.1.6.0




'"" As a prosecutor, I would ~l the ~~-~l between prohibited involuntariness and the )

tools authorized by Miranda and its progeny. I might see myself employing an

involuntariness standard as an ethical floor, both because it's sound judicially to survive , .

second-guessing and because of my personal convictions. Prosecutors, like judges and

lawyers and normal people, have to use their ill'lli.tion; thus, my i~pres~ion.'!f tl!e.<c;t.ality { v) of the circumstances would determine whether I think it appropriate to use a piece of

evidence.

I would aspire not to put suspects in situations that resemble close calls, based on

that standard, but I would provide myself wiggle room with respect to the severity of the

crime or the weight of evidence amassed against a suspect. Ultimately, I would be

mindful of the fact that Miranda forbids coercion but not mere .. ~!!:_3_~t?glc_E~_ception. I '· ~ ~- ~·-~-< ,_.o·,~ .--~..._.__..._.~ 0• - .. ---••'> -•ri_,_ -· ~'<- ,L<- - • '•• - <

would begrudgingly accept that ploys to mislead the suspect or lull him into a false sense

of security do not rise to that coercive, compulsive level that triggers Miranda concerns.


Answer-to-Question-essay question 1

ISSUE A

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I -Moms Collin


Whether officer was required to give Miranda warnings to Junior.

RULES

To trigger Miranda protections, a suspect must be in custody and under /. .-·--~-

-i~~~~~~~~~~ A suspect is ~J.,hen he is i~, in an interrogation room, at the

station house. A suspect is not in custody when he voluntarily appears at the station ---------house. Factors relevant to whether the police had custody unde~ are the brevit-.;z V

'~ \

of the encounter, the ability of the suspect to leave and terminate the questioning, and 1 ~ exposure of the suspect to the public and passersby. A suspect i mterrogate when he ts

\

expressly questioned or subjected the the functional equivalent of express questioning. V -------~----··-• •-'•-"'~"<'·--' _,., ~--~·--~---~----• ~ .._,,, .. ,,.,,.,.,., .. .,•--~·-··,,~,--,-•,,~-.. «. •---~•-<"-'•• ~ ·- - ~.,.,._, __ r_,-~.,..._

That fun~I equivalent is construed to be words or actions on the part of police, othe)

than those attendant to arrest and custody, which the police should know are reasonably ~

likely to elicit an incriminating statement from the suspect. Factors relevant to whether ----------- ~ - .

the police should know their words or conduct are reasonably likely to elicit an

incriminating statement incll!de E?:2wledge .that the suspect is unusually susceptible to a

particular form of persuasion and that the suspect is unusual! disoriented or upset.

Institution Wiiiamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed Extegrity Exam4 > 14.1.6.0



Junior was in custody when he was questioned by the sherrif because he was --·-

·'° isolated, alone with the Sherrif, at the station house. Although Junior was not in an

--------'"·-----·-interrogation room, th~heqif s of!lc~-~~-s ~losed, suggesting he did not have an

ability to leave or terminate the questioning. Junior was not exposed to the public in the _____... .......... ..-.... _.., _,...., .. ,,,.~~··- -

Sherrif' s office because the door was closed and he was alone. While it is true that

Junior's mother was just outside the door, the fact that he was told she could not be .......... ---··-----•->--. present indicates, for all intents and purposes, that he was not exposed. The brevity of the ___ _.. _. .. -..... ~... ., --------.

encounter is not known, so that fact would still be relevant. Conceding that Junior

appeared voluntarily at the station house, it must be relevant to include the fact that it was ~

his mother who brought him there. A parent has discretion over her child, to be sure, but

the Sherrif understood this and, arguably, used that to his advantage by asking the mother

to bring Junior, instead of waiting until he could ask Junior himself to come to the station

house to talk. ~~~~-~ot ex._~~~~sly ~ue~t~-~:med, sugges~-~~: he wasn't interrogated)

because the officer never directly asked him anything. f'.lonetheless, the Sherrif should --------------·-·-----·-~... . ·'"----~--~--· .. Jl!!,~e known that his words were reasonaby likely to elicit an incriminating response from

~·-~~~-._._ __ ,, _____ ·-----···~~·--- _,, ,,, ... , ____ ,.-.,, ··~,_.,,._~- .. -· ~----····_,_, ... ,... _____ , -·---.,·-... ~~··_,,....._., ___ Junior because he should have known that, when he closed to the door to his office, and

Junior immediately asked for his mother to be present, this suggested that Junior and his

mother were close, and Junior wouldn't want to disappoint her. Further, the officer

should have known that when Junior said he thought the Sheriff was a "great guy" and

because they had something in common (playing the same position in football) that

Junior would want his respones to please the sheriff; thus, because the sheriff had already

Institution Willamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed Extegrtty Exam4 > 14.1.6.0



told Junior he "could help himself out by saying that he'd done it," Junior understood ". '. ~ . . '·

,, •• • f~

-what the sheriff wanted, and Junior was inclined to give that to the sheriff because of his

-·~---··----~----

admiration.

CONCLUSION

·, The sheriff was required to give Junior his Miranda warnings because Junior was in)\

his custody, insofar a~ Ju~~-~-:~;ola~~at ~~·~~at~~~ho~se in the sheriffs office, and

Junior was being interrogated, because Junior was subjected to the functional equivalent

of express questioning during the interaction.

ISSUE (B)

Whether the sheriff gave Junior his Miranda warnings.

RULES (B)

~~~'!.~~:_~~t~_:-~~~-~~-!old_~_t:-~as ~_:~~~ .. to ~emain silent; that anything) V he does say may be used as evidence against him; that he has the right to presence of

counsel, retained or appointed. Miranda warnings are not expressly circumscribed, ritual /

incantations or Gospel; words that reasonably convey the same essential message suffice. ----~~~-=~~-~~t~~~~~er procedures ~~~~:~~-~:_e!!::~~~l.~ ~~~:~~~-~e ~~~~~his / ri~~~~~il~~~.~~~!~~~~~!~~i~uous .. ?..P£9!1~~~~~~!J!~!!1~r~ .... L--~--

Institution Wiiiamette Collage of Law Exam Mode Closed



ANALYSIS (B)

The sherrif told Junior "he didn't have to talk if he didn't want to." The sheriff told

Junior "he could stop the questioning anytime he wanted to do so." Theses~~~~~!:''

, ___ take~~~~~ reasonbly convey that Junior had a right to re1!1~-i~-~!_l_:~!:. i(o;e~~'r. th --~··~-~--~~---...__.,,._..... ~ ~·-···--~···--·----, _.,_,.~---- ··- ~ .. ·---··· ~·-·--· __,. ~- - . - --> .,,

".,.,,.._ ~ ..... -~ .. ---officer told Junior "lawyes would be expensive" and the whole thing would cost his

- . ' •••• '-• • •o --• .. ·._,. •A'--• -· -- '-'''• -~~-·~-'"-··-~--- .... --~-~-~.,,,.~Or ...... ~-- .. ~ "• ----- .... ~ ,..._ ... ..,. ..... ~ ..

single mother "a bundle of cash that she didn't have." It is impossible to suggest this

reasonably conveys the same essentia!!E~~-~agc:,~!rgualy Mf!.~'!..<fa's most meaningful

right - the right to counsel. Junior was not made to understand that counsel would be _____ ,______..__.._ .._ ___ ._,.,--~'""""'~---""~---·~--~ ~., ..... _ __...,.._,....._ ... __ _ appointed for him if he or his mother could not afford counsel. Further, Junior was not

made lo ~;,d~;s;and th~t h~ had .he ri~t t~ ;;ese~c~ ;f c;~:el prior '? a~d ~~ng ~? t/' .~-t~~'.~_g _b(!C_•~~e-the. ~herrif n~~e~~~i'.'__ anyt_~~~ ~~a~c!f'.'~!:_ a_d_vis~~~~i~)h\ "complicat[ions]" of involving lawyers, suggesting the presence of a lawyer was a bad\

thing and probably not something Junior was entitled to.

CONCLUSION (B)

The sheriff did not give Junior his Miranda warnings because he did not use words

that reasonably conveyed the same essential message of Miranda's protections, and the

sheriff did not demonstrate the use of other procedures to ensure Miranda's safeguards

were employed.

ISSUE (C)


Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I ·Morr!• Collin


~¥(S~ Whether Junior's confession must be suppressed as the product of compulsi.Qn.

? r ·- ,........----~ ·- -

i ·r~-.. vJ"-'/r(IC ~Ir. . /tu.~ ~ rlf""' RULE (C)

~fl ~ Custodial interrogation is inherently coercive, and statements obtained without a

record showing the Miranda warnings were given will be inadmissible, assuming those

statements were the product of compulsion.

ANALYSIS (C)

Junior was in police custody, and Junior was being interrogated, so according to

Miranda, the sherrif was required to give Junior his warnings, words that reasonably

convey the same essential message, or to employ some other procedures at least as

effective in assuring the accused is apprised of his right to remain silent and given

consistent opportunity to exercis@JJunior was not told at the outset that he did not

have to talk to the officer, but he was told further into the interaction, suggesting an

inconsistent opportunity that would not be meaningful. He was not told he had a right to

the presence of a lawyer during questioning, and indeed he was advised against involving

lawyers, because it would be expensive to his mother. Junior then signed a written

confession, which must be the product of compulsion because of the inherently coercive ,---·-----··'-~·--·-~ ---·

atmosphere in which the interaction took place

CONCLUSION (C)




Junior's confession must be suppressed as the product of compulsion because his

statement was given in an inherently coercive atmosphere.

ISSUE(D)

Assuming the officer was not required to give Junior his Miranda warnings,

whether Junior's confession must be suppressed because it w~s,~~olunt~ry./ ~--:-,-.:::--~

RULE(D)

Confessions that are the resu~Y6f~ducements to hope or fear ~reloercive and

considered involuntary pursuant to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-

incrimination/Voluntariness i~_~a totality of the circumstances inquiry, taking into account ""•..-, . <'~

the circumstances ~fiiii-~teraction between citizen and law enforcement, focusing on !--------·-·---· -~-··------·--- --·· - ··--· - ~ ·--·---- ·~-- . ..,.

~h~~-t-~e-~~~.~~t~n~"~-ff~ct ~~n ~~':_11l~~d_o~ th_e accused w~~-~~~~~~elevant in the \ ~ voluntariness inquiry include the personal characteristics of the accused, such as age, J background, education, life experience, state of mind. Wh~:.p~lke say and how they' , V say it are important indications of voluntariness. /

ANALYSIS (D)

Junior was told by the sheriff that the sheriff believed he had committed the crime

Institution Wiiiamette College of Law Exam Mode Closect Extegrity Exam4 > 14.1 .6.0

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I ·Morris Collln

Section All Page 14of19

and that the sheriff had a witness to that fact. These facts are reminiscent of Bram, which ' ~-~----- .. ---~

is the broadest statement by the court of non-physical or subtle mental coercion that rises -----~~---~- ~ -------- ~-· -·~- ............... _ --- .. ·-- -

to the level of compulsion and will invalidate a confession. Like Bram, Junior's guilt is -----. ~~-~ssumed, and a p~~rr~~~~~i~~-wit~::s puts the pressure on Junior

to come clean to what the sherrif says he knows. This, c~-~_!>~c:c1 wi~~~-~ that the · )

~h~~i~r.t~~~ul_li9r_~e~:~!1~~~~.~!Il!~~lf2_t1C~~stains the inference that Junior would f\ ,..not have s~~~~~~'.91e sheriff gave him that his confession would ameliorate}

his position with respect to the crime. As well, the sheriff told Junior that involving

lawyers would be costly to his mother, suggesting Junior would not have spoken but for

-~ ~f he did ~~~:~e.-~~~-1~-~~-~i~-~~~:~~~~~u~~~~j~~~~~:~;i-o~~~:nd indeed his own situation. Further, and most compelling, is that Junior is 15 years old, __ ....... --- ~..,~-~·---' ~· -

' alone in a sheriff's office, and Junior had asked for his mother to be present in the room,..

This ought to tell the officer that he is dealing, not with a person having a young adult's

mentality, but more of an adult child's. Including Junior's stated admiration for the

sheriff - a "great guy" in the eyes of a 15 year old, being interrogated - serves to ,--- -~---------- .. ---·- ·-·- -·- .. -- -----underscore the fact that Junior was coerced with both negative and positive motivations

to confess.

CONCLUSION (D)

Assuming Junior was not required to be given Miranda warnings, his confession

must be excluded because it was involuntary under the totality of the circumstances. ~/


Answer-to-Question-essay quesiton 2

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro I -Morris Collln


Whether Drey may exclude the evidence found in the footlocker and subsequent\ ,._ _ _;::.--"'- -·····. . . -~ \ /,/"/

search of the address on the footlocker's luggage tag depends on whether the search of) the contents of the footlocker was unlawful.

The Fourth Amendment requires searches pursuant to a ~nt _ _9_L~ion to ~ r·- ---------- --- ·----- --- . -

the warrant requirement. Otherwise, evidence obtained in violation of that protection that .y,·· ~ ·-· ·-·-- --------------- ·------- .....

is directly and causally related will be excluded. Government has searched wherever it -~,.. ,_...,.,.......,,, ......... -, .. -d ..... ,...,. ___ .,. ____ ~ ... - .... ,..,, ... _.. ........ ~~~-~~---~--- .

has violated a persons constitutionally protected reasonable ex~~n of p~cy, as"~ ~

determined by a twofold inquiry - whether the person manifested an actual, subjective

expectation of privacy, and whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as

reasonable. Also, where government interferes with property interests, such as physical ~

intrusion for information gathering, there has been a search. Under the plain view ""''' / 'j \ (//

exception, the i~ating :h!lr_?~!er_C)f ili..C'. ~y!Qe,Qcetn.l1§.U)~ .''iU1Illediati;Jy ,app~~-~t.)

Here,J.h'e footlocker was locked. A locked footlocker evinces an ~al exp~<:_t<[_tion '·~/ -·--· -·-··~-~~··c-.--- _.._ •

of privacy because people who lock things indeed expect that that will foreclose anyone

else from unauthorized access. Clearly, society recognizes a reasonable expectation of

privacy in locked things, evidenced by laws prohibiting others and in some cases police

from breaking and entering homes, cars, and other belongings. Further, by opening the

(v) /

Institution Wiiiamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed



locked footlocker, the police physically intruded into the interior to gain information·

about the contents. It should be noted that the footlocker, with a luggage tag

corresponding tPfn"-Jii1/r address, indicated ~~;-~:n was not the ;~~~~~d thus that

police were potentially dealing with another person's expectations of privacy. Assuming ~ -·-------~·-- ,.,,.

that police did not exceed the scope of their entry into Kim's house under th(~~igency· . _,/~'

exception to the warrant requirement for community caretaking, the police still would }_-------·-~ ------ .,., __ --~------------ -~~ ... -----·~-·---- _ ... --·

need a lawful right of access to the footlocker found in Kim's basement. If the officers in

(/Hicks ~xceeded the scope of a lawful entry under exigency by sim12ly n1;1ggings()me ----·~;___,_.. __ ~_....,_ .. _,,____ -·····-·-. ,.. . . . ~ . - ,.

~_:,~_<!.\l_iptn.~~~.t?_:,~ew_a seri_a~ m!,~b~r,_it stoutly stands to reason that cra.9.king._QP~P. a V _locked footlocker exceeds th~!_S_(l!_!!t? ~_C_?,pe. The officers could not have reasonably

-.._--~----- ·----- __ . .,__________ __._,....__..._.~---------·--

believed human childrens' or even feline's screams could emanate from within such a

confined space. Further, a f?~tl~~~r!11a~k~~ ~i~_"Si_lk R~ad,'' thot~~ ~~~gest~~e~~~~~t ~

"immediately apparent" as incriminating, because the standard for such is not a mere ·---__..,...___.-----... .-._,... -·•-•.---<'•••"°"-"•-•~'"-"' r..,.~,_"'"'•"">••·• ·-"'• ...... ..,.,.,,..._-..~,->~•••-~-~

reasonable suspicion of criminality but probable cause. Assuming then that the search -···---- .. , _ _,, __ ~;:, "-- -·- __,,_~---... - .... ~ ....... ..._-..-----...,... ...... __ c...-.,-.,.,, •• p.,. - ,. ,..,.,... • ,__,___.,,, ~-~----.~- - ~ ~·-·· -··. -· -·

was unlawful, the discovery of drugs within is the fruit of that unlawful search. Thus, ..------ - -- ~- -- ,. ..... - -~- -- -~-· -~ ---~ --~ "-·-- ~--·•.h• - ..... ,.,__. -..--- ..-J>< __ _.., __ ,_....,_ .. ____ .....,., •• _ ..... ,,.,.._ ·- ..... ~,......-·..---

police would not have been able to secure a warrant for the search of the address on the ----··--------~--~·~---

luggage tag without that unlawfully seized evidence. Further, if there was probable cause

to open the safe:-;;:;-;~~::::o reason that: warrant could not be obtained. ( 0

Government ~will respond that there was probable cause to ope°'_the footlocker. The ··- .... _ ~------· .- .·· __ ,. __ ···-- . - - ·- , ___ ····-

safe was found in course o_~ a search pursuant to the exigency exception to the warrant

requirement (community caretaking); officers were shot, thus they had SITA authority to

search adjoining spaces from which attach might be launched, and to clear the area of

Institution Wiiiamette College of Law Exam Mode Closed Extegrlty Exam4 > 14.1.6.0

Course I Session M14 334 Crim Pro 1-Morrta Collln


other shooters, or search for victims. The calls to the station about children's cries

suggest there was all the more reason to conduct a thorough search of the home in the

interest of protecting children who might be seriously injured or l1:nconscious. The fact

that the foolocker was found in the basement, marked "Silk Road," suggests efforts were

made to seclude it, and "Silk Road" has such obvious connotations relating to illegal drug

trade that it would impede effective and reasonable law

safe was in

plain view

lawful vantage point entry under exigency

lawful right of access

didn't exceed scope of search

incriminating character immediately apparent

,,,.,,.,.,.4 .. ,....,,...... ...... .,...-,~ - - ..... ___ ___

(/drey has no standing

··~----·-······

Of Law Exam Mode All Page - · PDF fileexpansion into Herring's good faith exception for...

Documents

Transcript of Of Law Exam Mode All Page - · PDF fileexpansion into Herring's good faith exception for...